2014 F1 season

Lewis Hamilton could win every race between now and the season finale at Abu Dhabi yet still lose the championship – due to the new double points rule.

With twice as many points being awarded at the final race of the year Hamilton could end the season with thirteen wins to Nico Rosberg’s five yet still be outscored by his team mate.

It would mean Hamilton winning all bar six of this year’s nineteen rounds, yet not being awarded the title.

The scenario it is not entirely far-fetched. Mercedes have had a significant performance advantage over their rivals in the first half of the season and have already scored six one-two finishes in the first ten races.

That included a run of four races where Hamilton won and Rosberg finished second. But even if that were to happen again twice over the coming rounds, victory for Rosberg in the double points finale would still secure him the championship, providing Hamilton finished lower than eighth or retired.

This situation could only occur because of the double points rule. Without it, given these same finishing positions, Hamilton would head to Abu Dhabi already champion on 376 points to Rosberg’s 334. Instead he would be left worrying that a piece of ill-timed misfortune might deny him the title, as his team mate claims the only 50-point race win of the year.

As it stands Hamilton needs to do more than just win races to increase his chance of winning the championship – he badly needs Rosberg to finish further down the running order. That’s not likely to happen without some misfortune on his team mate’s part.

It also means the chances are rising that the hugely unpopular double points rules will end up deciding the outcome of the championship.

it would be a total disgrace if the outcome of the WDC would be different without the double-farce.

In reality i think the boys are so evenly matched that it seems rather more likely that the double point dont make the difference. Still the rule is a testament of total retardants working at the FIA and 96% voting against it, makes it fair to say “NOBODY likes this rule.. not even the local mule”

This rule really ticks me of to be frank .. even more so than the constant changing of the rules during the game..

I wonder though.. how can the F1 be ‘wondering’ why the viewer-rates are dropping, whilst they refuse to listen to those very people..
A new language need to be invented.. just to discribe how thick they are there at the FIA&consorts.

This isn’t how it would be interpreted. This would only curry heated discussion and get F1 to the front pages, which is exactly what the FIA want. 2014 would become “that famous year Nico Rosberg snatched the title at the last round despite impossible odds”.

As outspoken as fans have been about it, it’s fuelling the fire of media activity and I’m sure at some level that translates into increasing figures/stats. At the end of the day we all complain but we all still watch it. Personally I don’t know anyone who has genuinely sacked F1 off. I may not pay for Sky or attend races but I tune into the BBC and grumble with my friends at what the sport has become. If fans are to speak with words the FIA can hear, it will be in the form of an organised boycott of the race by attendees. I hope every seat in Abu Dhabi is empty and I hope it makes Bernie sweat.

I agree with everything you have said yet despite my hate for this rule I will be sitting in the Grandstands at Abu Dhabi with my £400 ticket. The FIA must be laughing their way to the bank. I don’t see this rule disappearing.

In the beginning, DP was a concern. Now, I don’t mind it at all. Both of them,HAM & ROS, got one entire season to manage their lead taking into account of final DP lottery. If one didn’t do it, its his inability given the circumstance. So whoever wins, whether it be HAM or ROS with or without DP; deserve to be WDC. End of story.

I understand the sentiment. I totally agree that its pretty unfair to gain so much advantage in that final race. However, that’s what the rule says. What I want to say here is that, everybody is aware of the rules almost an year in advance. So its up to the driver to work hard and create that lead over the whole season in order to make sure that you wont lose it at the final one. It’s like giving your 200% on that particular weekend (like Alonso says most often) while you give 100% in rest of the weekends.

So for me, given the set of rules, whoever comes ahead at the end of the championship is a deserving champion.

everybody is aware of the rules almost an year in advance. So its up to the driver to work hard and create that lead over the whole season in order to make sure that you wont lose it at the final one. It’s like giving your 200% on that particular weekend (like Alonso says most often) while you give 100% in rest of the weekends.

Yes, everybody is aware. Meaning everybody is doing the exact same thing. Net result; everybody does their best, or, 100%. They always have and always will. It’s silly to consider one of them can just decide to do more all of a sudden and create a nice lead. And don’t even get me started on Alonso’s PR bull****. 120%, 200%, what a load of crap.

well, what i am pointing out earlier is that teams & drivers must give extra care and preparation for final race due to the double points.. like quality of engine and components preserved for that dp race..special reliability checks.. in other words an extra special care.. which is like giving more than 100% compared to what they used to do on a normal race weekend… i am pretty sure all teams & drivers will plan and execute like that…

Let’s suppose that hammy can only win by double points, will nico battle with him to try and finish second in that race? nico slows down to allow hammy to pass, hammy slows to allow nico to retake the lead, on and on, what a joke of a rule.

its just the points.. we have seen several close battles over years (2007,2008,2010,2012,…) & how each driver just wanted to win the WDC in final race.. i guess this will work just like the same but with double the points.. please dont get me wrong; i am not an advocate of DP. nonetheless, i will consider whoever wins as a worthy WDC.

that would not only be sad, it would be unacceptable, and it would make the WDC utterly worthless, for the fans, but also for the driver.. of course any driver will take it, but any self respecting sportsman can not feel very good about himself in knowingly ‘cheating’ a WDC to his name.

F1 has done some major stupidities, but this one beats them all.. this has to be the #1 all time, never gonna beat that- idiotic thing ever done in F1..

(and we have whole bookworks full of the quirks of the F1..)

After 35years of loyal following im really considering not watching anymore. It brings more irritation and disbelieve than anything else.

Im deeply dissapointed in F1, and the last few years they are going down the ravine.. head first.

I don’t like this at all. Giving one race more clout than the next just isn’t fair. In fact yeah it’s cool to change the cars to an engine based formula is cool. ERS and batteries is ain’t. They are race cars. Hamilton already IS a champion. But Merchiedes is clearly giving Rossberg the championship no matter what. They don’t have to have a German champion but hey one of those two are going to win so why the order for Hamilton to move over today?

You misunderstand. What I mean is you cut the points available in Abu Dhabi in half (it goes back to a normal race, in other words) and give those to the extra race. Effectively, you are restoring the status quo without Bernie having to admit he was wrong. The suggestion was made in jest as I know perfectly well that the FIA doesn’t go back on anything once it’s decided. I mean, that would be the same as admitting they were wrong, wouldn’t it…? ;)

@baron Northern Ireland is part of the UK. However, people who live in Northern Ireland can, I believe, choose to identify as Irish and hold an Irish passport, and possibly also identify as Northern Irish primarily (as opposed to Irish or British). I think there’s also a power-sharing agreement in place there, with its own parliament with representatives from both the Irish Catholic population (Sinn Fein) and the Unionist Protestant population (several parties).

Northern Ireland has its own international FIFA football team, and several athletes identify as being from Northern Ireland such as the golfer Rory McIlroy. Eddie Irvine was from County Down in Northern Ireland but self identified as Irish.

If air enough but the description “Northern Irish” is a self described title, not an official one, so officially, a person residing in NI could be British or Irish. It does seem odd that there is no official identity title as such as it might take some of the heat out of some situations.

I still don’t agree that double points should shape who wins the championship or not. Similar to how F1 used to have the best out of X races system which cost Graham Hill the championship in 1964 and Alain Prost in 1988. It would be pretty incredible and somewhat weird for Hamilton to win thirteen races, equalling the number of races that Vettel won last year, yet Rosberg would take the title with just five wins.

yes it is indeed amazing to see that even such a huge deficit can be overcome in one lucky race.
Of course it is not to be expected that Lewis will win all the other races, but rather half the remaining races. still depending on positions in the last race, the double-farce could swing either way.. it could prove pointless in the end.. and it could prove to be a total gamechanger.

Keith, I was just wondering if an option to treat Abu Double as a normal-scoring race could be added to the points calculator, just to see who would be crowned champion hadn’t the double points been introduced?

4 years ago or so Mr. E suggested a Medals scoring system where the driver with most wins takes the crown, back then I thought it would be a disgrace for drivers who consistently score points or like the season before when Button dominated the first half but then Vettel and Barrichello catched up and it was thriling again at the end.
But the double points system takes it really to new heights.

That’s not strictly true actually. Wins would indeed have the same value for each round, but a different value depending on who the winner was. For the eventual champion, each win would count as exactly that- 1 win. However, all other positions in the championship were to be decided by points still. So for every other driver, 1 win would count as (back then) 10 points in the ranking.

That could give an absurd championship standing such as the following.

I agree that the double points rule is stupid and using examples is the easiest way of showing that, but still I think that the idea of Hamilton winning 13 races in a row is rather silly.

So far Hamilton has 5 wins to Rosberg’s 4 wins. Sure, Lewis has had mechanical problems but he has also made mistakes and he has at times been overall slower than Nico. Besides, Rosberg has also lost at least one (more likely two) win because of mechanical issues. Not to mention that Mercedes’ car is so unreliable that both Nico and Lewis are likely to lose wins due to mechanical issues in the future also.

I know this isn’t the main point of this article, but I’ve heard this idea of Lewis winning every race bar Abu Dhabi too many times.

Rosberg’s wins: two Hamilton DNFs, Monaco after scuppering Hamilton’s chance for pole (which was highly likely), and a Hamilton crash during qualifying placing him 20th on the grid.

So 3 out of 4 times Hamilton could not compete effectively, and the other time it’s a completely abnormal circuit, Monaco, where grid position is of extreme importance. Given those could have easily been 4 Hamilton wins too, it seems a reasonable enough assumption.

I know it’s an unpopular view amongst users of F1F but I support the double points idea as a means of prolonging the championship into the final round. Admittedly, I’d rather that double-points round was a season finale at Interlagos, which has given us so many exciting finales in the past, than at Abu Dhabi. But I think as long as the same rules apply to every driver and team, why shouldn’t the points formula prolong the championship battle and diminish the likelihood of “dead rubbers”?

@casanova It means that the other eighteen rounds of the championship are half as important as Abu Dhabi, despite being the same length. I don’t see why winning Abu Dhabi should be worth double the amount of points of winning Silverstone or Monaco unless the race distance for Abu Dhabi is twice the length. From a sporting perspective, it’s no better than NASCAR’s Chase for the Cup, which isn’t very sporting at all.

Sorry ;) I’m against double points because it goes against sporting fairness, devalues the effort that goes into the previous races, and increases the lottery aspect of an already luck dependent sport.

But in the event that it does keep the championship open till the last race (when it otherwise would have been decided) then despite what anyone says, it will increase the excitement of the last race. Even if that excitement is based around the viewers’ pre-emptive anger if the championship goes the wrong way because of it ;)

I don’t know what ‘dead rubbers’ are, but I’d rather close racing be the cause of the Championship being prolonged, than the artificial addition of a final lottery race that has different rules than every other race.

But @craig-o, surely some races are more important than others during a season anyway? Particularly the final race. Equality of opportunity between drivers and teams is what matters, not between different rounds of the championship. Why should Australia get to be the season opener rather than Italy? Why should Monaco have equal weight despite being shorter than all the other races? Why should half-points be awarded for a race which only runs 20% of its intended distance? Or the same for one which runs to 70%? Why should there be a Singapore GP but not a Turkish GP?

@casanova Because the purpose of the points system should be to determine a worthy champion by fair means and nothing else.

Skewing it in this way for entertainment reasons devalues and discredits the championship, which is why the reaction to it has been so hostile.

If there were some sporting justification for offering twice as many points – for example, the race being significantly longer than other rounds (as is the case with IndyCar’s double points races or the Le Mans 24 Hours in the World Endurance Championship) – then it would be more acceptable. But this has solely been introduced as a gimmick.

@keithcollantine – I disagree; secondary purposes of the points system can include rewarding lower placed teams and incentivizing competition throughout the field (e.g. extending points scoring positions down to 8th, and then 10th). Prolonging the championship battle and eliminating championship dead rubbers is a legitimate secondary purpose in my opinion. The primary purpose remains, as you say, to determine a worthy champion by fair means. I assert that this is still achieved under double points, because fundamentally the system is still fair. Every driver and team has the same opportunity to turn up at Abu Dhabi and beat their rivals to the win, as with any other race on the calendar. Changing the rewards on offer doesn’t change the fairness of the race.

Would you describe every championship from 1950 to 1990 (when not every race counted towards the championship) as “devalued and discredited”? No – we look upon the champions of that era as worthy champions, because they competed under the same system as their contemporary rivals and prevailed.

Not if it is done at the expense of fairness, as in the case of double points. That’s when you cross the line between ‘sport’ and ‘entertainment product’. (By the way I hadn’t come across the phrase ‘dead rubber’ either until now).

The primary purpose remains, as you say, to determine a worthy champion by fair means. I assert that this is still achieved under double points, because fundamentally the system is still fair.

I disagree entirely. Double points makes the system fundamentally unfair, because its introduction means we could have two drivers score identical results over the course of the season, yet one of them wins merely because they happened to finish ahead at the one race which was arbitrarily worth twice as much as the others.

Which is also why I don’t consider the ‘dropped scores’ rule analogous to double points, though the removal of that in 1991 was definitely a step forward.

Every driver and team has the same opportunity to turn up at Abu Dhabi and beat their rivals to the win, as with any other race on the calendar. Changing the rewards on offer doesn’t change the fairness of the race.

Of course it changes the fairness of the race within the context of the championship because you are offering a different reward for the same accomplishment.

By that argument, to satisfy this fixation with “eliminating championship dead rubbers”, it would be ‘fair’ to devise a system which guarantees the championship isn’t decided until the final race. The problem is in order to do that you’d have to offer twice as many points at each successive event, eventually awarding a six and a half million points to the Abu Dhabi winner.

This would be ludicrous, and it demonstrates why you can’t satisfy the need to “eliminate championship dead rubbers” without sacrificing fairness. In sport, the latter should take precedence. Besides which, some of the best ever grands prix occurred after the drivers’ championship was settled. Suzuka ’05, anyone?

The argument comes down to “is the system fair?”. You say that double points are not fair, because one race is rewarded more than another. That is already the case, with the half-points rule for red-flagged races.

But why should all the races in a season be rewarded equally? Monaco is shorter than any other race, but a “special challenge”. Why not fewer (or indeed more) points for Monaco? As it stands already, drivers are not equally rewarded for their accomplishments – surely you’d agree that Hamilton’s 25 points in Bahrain were more of an accomplishment than Rosberg’s 25 points in Germany (to pick two recent examples)?

Fairness is defined (by the OED) as “treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination”. Drivers have equal opportunity to score the double points offered at Abu Dhabi – hence it is fair.

Is it contrived; arbitrary? Yes, undoubtedly. Unnecessary? Arguably so (I personally am still interested in a dead rubber race; the general public and casual fans may be different). But is it unfair? No – absolutely not.

@casanova A portion of the race was completed, so full points are not awarded. That’s fair.

Hamilton may have won by a bigger margin in Bahrain to get those 25 points than Rosberg did in Germany, but he scored a victory after doing the full distance of the race. They get the same amount of points.

In Abu Dhabi double points are given even though a result there is exactly the same for every other track – crossing the finish line after approximately 300 KM. What makes winning at Abu Dhabi worth more in the championship than a win in Canada, Hockenheim, Spa, Singapore, or Monza. Not a damn thing.

@casanova The definition of “fair” is broader than the part you’ve just quoted. I also have an OED and the first definition for it is “just; equitable”.

A situation where two drivers can have identical results over the course of the season yet one gets more points because one race is arbitrarily valued more highly is unjust and inequitable, therefore unfair. As I’ve already said, so I’ll leave it at that.

yes, think of it in terms of the premier league… it would not be considered fair if the last match is rewarded 6point instead of 3. the world would be too small, i can tell you that.

And Keith made a very solid point, when stating the table should only be there to measure by a fair way. measuring 1 part different is going to alter statistics in ways that are unwanted.

people/fans have a good reason to be outraged by this. it is just utter nonsense, and it makes me seriously doubt if i will watch again next year.

I already dropped my pay-tv, and just watch (albeit slighty lower quality) for free online.
F1 has anno2014 only little to do with racing.. and i like racing.. if i wanna see some retarded politics, i can always turn on the news….

@casanova –
Double points only stretch the title to the final round in years where it otherwise would have been decided in the penultimate round. Do we look back at seasons like 2000 or 2009 and lament a poor title fight just because it didn’t go to the final round? No, Suzuka 2000 and Brazil 2009 are fondly remembered as classic races that decided hard fought championships for Schumacher and Button. How about 1989/1990, the height of the Senna-Prost rivalry, where neither championship actually went to the final round?

1992, 2002 and 2013 still would have been won with X races to go regardless of double points, leaving several “dead rubbers” and fixing nothing. That’s just the way sport seasons work sometimes.

Of course, aside from a small points difference now, it could be just as easily said that Rosberg could also win 13 races and lose the WDC. Haven’t done the actual math using the calculator but I’m sure it’s pretty much the same for both drivers with a slight tweak in the game.

BE has pretty much guaranteed himself audience until the end…unfortunately the price for that is there will be one driver robbed and one who won because of double points, so it’s going to be a real letdown in the end.

Ironically, it is now reasonable to hope one of them starts running away with it and leads by more than 50 before Abu Double…the opposite of what BE wants for F1 after SV/RBR. It’s really maddening that such a great see-saw battle this year may be so badly concluded.

@keithcollantine There’s nothing particularly wrong with it per se, it just comes across as if Hamilton is the only one that can be hard done by the double points rule, where as it can affect Rosberg (or any other number of drivers in their respective fights) just as harshly.

While I understand it’s a stark example of the double points debacle worth pointing out, it sounds more like “let’s feel sorry for Hamilton” than “double points rule sucks” in practice.

I do apologise for the cheap shot at the .UK, just a personal gripe due to all the Hamilton news this year (originating from this site, where I get all my F1 news), which is obviously no fault of yours.

@skipgamer thought exactly the same and I wrote a few replies down about it. But I guess it caters so many Brits here, regardless of being international site, that Keith only wanted to illustrate it one-way, not both ways.

@skipgamer@lari Keith (Collantine) used Hamilton as the example because of the current points situation and the fact he has already won one more race therefore it is the example that shows the unfairness of double points more starkly. If he had used Rosberg it would only be 11 wins (i think, haven’t used the calculator) and wouldn’t seem very extreme.

It’s nothing to do with nationality or ‘catering to the many brits’ (to paraphrase Lari).

Interesting. So in that scenario LH will have indeed paid for his unreliability woes. His fans, and those indifferent to him but who consider him the sentimental favourite perhaps because of his greater unreliability, or because of the general sentiment that he is faster and better as a proven WDC, will be bitter and disappointed. NR will be deserving because of winning 9 straight against a formidable foe, but it will be looked at that LH was robbed. Fortunately the likelihood is far greater that neither driver is about to win all the remaining races. Unfortunately Abu Double still looms ahead no matter what.

For 35years i keep wondering where the keep finding the retards to run this sport.. and even more hilarious.. why i kept watching.. but im really at the end of my treads now. This year i have already started following F3 (GO-Go Max!!) and DTM. also GP2 is kinda .. mhjeyy.. i dont know.. I really love the F3. although the cars are considerably (and visibly) slower, and they have to brake, like, 3lightyears earlier.. the racing is just superb. F1 can only dream of having races like that. and yeh yeh i know, that is ‘formula’ racing where there is only limited chassis’/engines and development, but still. Admittedly F1 provides us with exceptional racing this year, so much that even the sound has become an inferiour issue. the fact that MB (finally a team pffjieeuuww) lets their drivers race on equal terms makes also the ‘run-away-battle’ very enjoyable, but this FIA .. (Frantically Interfering Authority) just makes my stomach turn over.. time and time again.. i feel unjust.. like.. mutilated by them.. ruining ‘my’ sport. (and im all in favor of ‘moving forward’ and changing things.. – changing for the better that is than of course..-) I really love the more relevant engines and like the prospect of my Insignia being boosted with 4MegaJoule extra power.. for FREE! ;) (this thing is so heavy it really needs it also hahaha) i just pray.. (and that for an atheist haha) that the ‘double-Farce’ will not change the outcome compared to the proper point-system. (if that means that one the driver must have certain pointlead.. so be it.)

@fritzoos Indeed, but the difference between them was one win, not eight, so this is on a completely different scale.

And given the ridiculously unjust events at Spa and Singapore that year I wouldn’t treat the season as a good case of a driver missing out on the title despite winning a greater of races. A more compelling example might be 1958 (Hawthorn champion with one win to Moss’s four) or 1987 (Piquet champion with three wins to Mansell’s six).

@keithcollantine
Even without double points rule it’s possible for a driver to win 14 out of 19 races and still lose the championship. It’s just very unlikely – as is the scenario described in this article.

Someone posted last week or so an interesting statistical analysis about the double points rule and the result was that while the championship is likely to be decided in Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi isn’ likely to change the outcome of the championship. I agree that the double points rule is stupid and should be removed, but it probably isn’t as big issue as it first seems.

Didn’t read the analysis you are talking about but I find it hard to grasp that the Championship will likely be decided in the final race, yet double points won’t change the outcome. It’s like saying the leader of the WDC chase with one race to go will win the WDC. If it will be decided in the final race that means someone was not leading by 50+ points going into the final race, which means to me that in many scenarios the double points could affect who wins the WDC depending on circumstances in the last race and the points spread ahead of said race, that being something less than 50.

@robbie
In that analysis the probability that double points rule changes the outcome of the championship was (if I remember correctly) a little bit over 20 percent or so.

Keep in mind that the double points rule won’t change the outcome of the championship if any of the following happens: a) the driver leading the championship has a better result; b) the driver who is second in the championship has a better result but it isn’t enough for him to claim the championship or c) the driver who is second in the championship has a better result and it is enough for him to win the championship, but he would’ve won it even without the double points.

@hotbottoms Fair points, and kind of makes me feel a bit better about it. The 3 scenarios make sense and at least one or two of them had crossed my mind when this concept was first announced, and I think it is what we should all hope for, but I also worry about how big a penalty will be if for example one of the drivers gets spun in the first corner, no fault of his own, and they are able to continue, but now be too disadvantaged because of points to win it. It’s the potential of a letdown, the lottery aspect, and the devaluing of all the other races that I think overwhelms people more than the best case scenarios you present, but if I take the one doing the analysis’ word for it, and it’s only 20%, then like I say that makes me feel a bit better about it. Would like to know how 20% became the number.

@robbie
I’d find the post, but unfortunately my computer isn’t working and writing these comments with my mobile phone is hard enough :)

Obviously the chance of double points affecting the outcome of the championship will depend on the actual situation before Abu Dhabi. For instance, we are a lot more likely to see double points affecting the outcome if another driver is leading by 11 points than if the lead is 3 or 24 points.

@davidnotcoulthard
I agree. But I wasn’t really defending the rule, I’m simply saying that the rule isn’t quite as bad as it first seems. But like I said, I think it’s a stupid rule and it should be removed.

@lari Of course either of them could lose the championship in the final race due to double points. But Hamilton’s case is more compelling because of the way the points work out at the moment – it makes for a neat illustration of how much the new points system changes things, and how unjust double points is.

@keithcollantine I don’t see it as any more compelling as the otherway around (NR losing due to double point, with more wins for LH). Only LH fans or Brits in general might be more compelled by this situation imho.

@lari The point of the article is “a driver could win loads of races yet still lose the championship because of double points”. In the case of Hamilton the maximum number of races he could win and then lose the championship is 13. In the case of Rosberg it’s 11. Therefore the Hamilton angle is more compelling. Do you follow?

To make it explicitly clear: I am not interested in which driver wins the championship, I am interested in the consequences of the introduction of double points. Which I think is obvious from the article.

@keithcollantine Even if it’s 3 races less for vice versa situation, it’s still strong enough point to address and would’ve been equally good to see how it would be then in addition to this. All the possible scenarios are always interesting, not just one, even if it’s the most extreme example.

Seeing the last 38 headlines, 10 of the has Hamilton on them (6 has Rosberg on headline, alot less mentions about the rest of the 20 drivers). This also just makes it look like it’s the main focus point ouf of all drivers. Hence it’s easy to think, a-ha, again Hamilton as focus point in the next .

Even if it’s 3 races less for vice versa situation, it’s still strong enough point to address and would’ve been equally good to see how it would be then in addition to this.

The point of the article is quite clear without needing a second example which would have required several more paragraphs talking about points calculations, which is pretty dry subject matter to begin with.

Given that the spread of articles you’ve cited includes a race weekend in which several of the most interesting stories involved Hamilton, there’s nothing wrong with the figures you’ve cited. Besides which, reducing the last few days’ content on F1 Fanatic to just the headlines is unrepresentative. Take the race report as an example – yes Hamilton is mentioned in the headline but most of the drivers feature in the article.

i think the point of this article is that Hamilton could end up winning almost 3 times as many races as Rosberg yet still not be the champion. When Hamilton won the championship, he won 5 races to Massa’s 6.

If they end the season on around 7/8 wins a piece i wont have many complaints but it would be a travesty if one of them lost the title just purely because of the extra points on offer.

To sum up:

A: There’s bound to be a fan back lash because someone in the championship will lose out because of double points (imagine being say williams losing 3rd place and a lot of money to Ferrari because of it)

Has it dawned on anyone else yet that this year’s WDC is probably going to be determined by Merc unreliability, and lack of competition, rather than pace, strategy or skill. Ceteris Paribus, they are expected to follow one another in 1-2 every Sunday, which will see the points swing stuck at 7 points each weekend. This is what will make Saturday so critical from here on in I think.

I try not to boil things down to one aspect such as unreliability. Sure one can isolate that aspect and make an argument, but there is no lack of competition between at least the two Merc guys, which is far better than a dominant team with one dominant driver, and their pace, strategy, and skill is ever present. I also like to throw in what I consider to be one of the most crucial, but yet invisible aspects…their ability to handle pressure when it is at it’s greatest…and they aren’t there yet. Saturday’s will be crucial for sure, but so will the umpteen possible scenarios that can and will likely happen, and so will those millisecond decisions by the drivers matter, especially when things really heat up as the season winds down. Yes the cars and drivers are so close that in the end it may easily be argued it coming down to reliability issues, but there is so much else affecting everything when both cars ARE reliable, that I hate to boil it down to one thing. No WDC driver ever causes his rivals’ unreliability, be he on the same team or a different one, and they still hand the trophy to the one who earned his points, even when sometimes those were somewhat gifted. That’s racing, and like life, it isn’t always fair and sometimes it is completely fair. Double points risks it being completely unfair though, and is an outside influence beyond anyone’s control.

What about a situation where, coming into the last race, Hamilton has won three more races than Rosberg but is still 26 points behind. Hamilton then wins the double points race and Rosberg finishes 4th or lower. Hamilton would be champion.

Would that be fair? Hamilton would have won more races but only won the championship due to the double points.

No, they can’t. Which is the whole point. If one of them is 12 points ahead and is leading the Double, picks up a puncture and pits again losing P1 in the process. How would that be fair and equal chance to everyone?